Informed player management

Do you really think the selection panel is chopping and changing quicks according to the latest declassified physio reports?

Moreover, is this a reasonable approach when we're getting smashed?

It's a workable philosophy on its face (and Corey has been vociferous in claiming overbowling any player younger than a quarter century is on the road to paraplegia) but it means more often than not we're going to play something beneath our best XI, which cost us dearly in Perth and almost did in Hobart.

In any case, I'm getting increasingly sick of Mickey Arthur fronting the media and telling us an ODI specialist is replacing a Test veteran because he bowled amazingly well in the nets the morning of the game.

"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

Do you really think the selection panel is chopping and changing quicks according to the latest declassified physio reports?

Moreover, is this a reasonable approach when we're getting smashed?

It's a workable philosophy on its face (and Corey has been vociferous in claiming overbowling any player younger than a quarter century is on the road to paraplegia) but it means more often than not we're going to play something beneath our best XI, which cost us dearly in Perth and almost did in Hobart.

In any case, I'm getting increasingly sick of Mickey Arthur fronting the media and telling us an ODI specialist is replacing a Test veteran because he bowled amazingly well in the nets the morning of the game.

lol.. I remember this classic interview of Azharuddin back when we used to suck away from home in the mid 90s.. He said something like "It is not that I am in bad form. I am playing very well in the nets.." Was the butt of every newspaper article for a week..

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Not being familiar with the exact physical condition of the aussie bowlers, cant comment for sure. But CA seems to be chopping and changing way too much in this department.

It is natural for young fast bowlers to get injured and stay out months at a time. Every bowler goes through this, and "managing" them isnt going to improve the situation by a whole lot. In fact the constantly changing lineup ends up hurting the side.

It only hurts the side because with the exception of Siddle and Johnson, Australia's bowlers are pretty inexperienced. In 5 years time the likes of Starc, Pattinson, Bird, Cummins, Hazlewood etc will all have plenty of Test experience.

It's a workable philosophy on its face (and Corey has been vociferous in claiming overbowling any player younger than a quarter century is on the road to paraplegia) but it means more often than not we're going to play something beneath our best XI, which cost us dearly in Perth and almost did in Hobart..

Tbf, I think they genuinely felt the XI they picked for Perth was the best they could, because of the state Siddle and Hilfenhaus were in. Obviously whether or not you think a fatigued Siddle or Hilf would've done a better job than Johnson and Hastings is another debate entirely, but I don't think either were "rested" as such.

Do you really think the selection panel is chopping and changing quicks according to the latest declassified physio reports?

Moreover, is this a reasonable approach when we're getting smashed?

It's a workable philosophy on its face (and Corey has been vociferous in claiming overbowling any player younger than a quarter century is on the road to paraplegia) but it means more often than not we're going to play something beneath our best XI, which cost us dearly in Perth and almost did in Hobart.

In any case, I'm getting increasingly sick of Mickey Arthur fronting the media and telling us an ODI specialist is replacing a Test veteran because he bowled amazingly well in the nets the morning of the game.

I think they are using slight niggles and exhaustion (things that in previous years players pushed through) as justification for rotating players.

The problem with this is two-fold (a) we don't have the quality of players to have anything other than our best on the park (I give you Perth as an example with our attack featuring Hastings) (b) it creates insecurity in the team, particular among our guys as their is not an established pecking order.

WIth the Siddle thing in Perth, that was just a blatant farce and cover up. All the time leading up to the game they were saying he was exhausted and needed to be rested. Then after we got thumped in what Clarke nominated as our "Grand Final", the selectors felt the heat and retrospectively came out saying that Siddle had a hamstring injury.

As further evidence of this, you will recall Invers coming out at the start of his reign in his initial press conference saying that, and I quote: "rotation is reality". Then after the Perth debacle he had that famous confrontation with a journalist who began asking him about the "rotation policy". Invers interrupted the journalist and corrected him: "You mean, informed player management".

So within a year we've gone from "rotation is reality" to correcting journalists when they bring up the "rotation policy", that it's really just "informed player management".

As I say, informed player management and these little niggles are just a guise in my opinion for rotation. They seem to love this "squad" mentality and that guys can just be pulled in and out and it won't impact on performance of the team or self-esteem/security of the players. As Shane Warne (in probably the only worthy thing to come from his manifesto) pointed out, that is just absolute bull****, and misunderstands sportsmen in general, and cricketers in particular.

They seem to love this "squad" mentality and that guys can just be pulled in and out and it won't impact on performance of the team or self-esteem/security of the players. As Shane Warne (in probably the only worthy thing to come from his manifesto) pointed out, that is just absolute bull****, and misunderstands sportsmen in general, and cricketers in particular.

This. Saying that the quicks going through serious injury is a rite of passage seems to be lacking empathy, tbh. Side strains, muscle tears and stress fractures would not be much fun at all for the bowler.

If we have a system that prevents them from picking these injuries up regularly, then we should be using it. It lets us get the most out of our resources.

While yes, it would be nice for Patto to play 14 straight Tests and take a hundred wickets, his body probably isn't up to it. Resting him, we might get him on the park in 10 or 11 of them, but if he breaks down, there he goes for the whole Ashes series.

In 5 years time, our core group of quicks will have stronger, more mature bodies to cope with the stresses of bowling, and all of them would be experienced at international level. That's a stock most countries would be jealous of.

Tbf, I think they genuinely felt the XI they picked for Perth was the best they could, because of the state Siddle and Hilfenhaus were in. Obviously whether or not you think a fatigued Siddle or Hilf would've done a better job than Johnson and Hastings is another debate entirely, but I don't think either were "rested" as such.

nah hastings over either of bird or hazlewood made little sense. hilf and siddle missing was fine though.

I want to know what The Furball thinks - he knows more than Warne, apparently

Inpart your wisdom, Furball

There might not be contact like in AFL but fast bowling in particular is extremely physically demanding thanks to the stresses put on the body during the action of delivering the ball.

That there's no tradition of resting players in cricket is utterly meaningless. As is Warne's assertion that it's not neccessary. He's played at the highest level, big deal. It doesn't mean he can't be wrong.

The closest sporting relation to cricket is baseball. Major League Baseball teams have loads of pitchers on their rosters who are rotated throughout the course of a game, nevermind season. Maybe it's baseball which has it wrong, and managing players workloads is new age crap? Maybe baseball could learn from cricket and just have its pitchers pitch until they can't pitch any more?

I've looked to take up running this year (I can't run just now due to injury but that's another story). Literally every resource I've read on the web or in magazines, whether it's about running training or strength training, really stresses the importance of rest in a training schedule. If you constantly push your body too hard, you'll eventually break down with an injury. The same applies for any sport. Cricket's fast bowlers are no different.